Re: Does VARCHAR2 size matter?

Nuno Souto wrote:
>
> Morten doodled thusly:
>
> >length, if there are any major performance reasons to keep the
> >fields as small as possible, or if those reasons are more likely to
> >be from a constraining/modelling perspective.
>
> I'd say the latter. Of course, if you store more data you have
> increased overhead, both space and I/O. But assuming small data,
> there should be no diff whatsoever other than constraining/modelling
> between say varchar2(500) and varchar2(4000).
>
> If you use PL/SQL, be careful. There used to be a limitation of
> PL/SQL varchar2 being only 2000 max. Dunno if removed in later
> versions.
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam

The main hassle I've seen is the myriad of reporting tools et al that use the precision to determine default sizes on print out etc etc. varchar2(4000) ends up looking ugly.

Hopefully these columns are not being indexed - but you can end up with the maxium key length issue.

hth
connor

-- 
==============================
Connor McDonald

http://www.oracledba.co.uk

"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue..."